Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Oral Abstinence; the Key to a Happy, Fulfilling and Joyous Marriage

Whilst doing a temple recommend interview last night I was asked by Sister McCulloch whether it was against the rules of the church to engage in the stimulation of the most sacred regions of ones holy temple whilst employing the use of ones lips and tongue. At first I was perplexed by the question, but then the spirit came to me and I said “just to clarify Sister McCulloch are you by any chance referring to intercourse of an oral variety and nature?” to which she hesitantly nodded. 

Local church leaders are not to ask married couples about their sexual practices and when members bring questions like this up we are to tell them that if it’s something they feel the need to bring up in an interview then perhaps the practice should be discontinued.

I told her that in my experience whenever these questions come up it is almost always the husband who is at fault. Why a priesthood holder would require such atrocities of a beautiful innocent sister like this is beyond my comprehension. If she were my wife I wouldn’t even think to make such a request. In fact I have never even approached Sister Paternoster with regards to intimacy unless invited and in the spirit of producing offspring unto the Lord.  Self control ought to be the guiding force amongst the brethren of the church.

I felt the issue would be better addressed as a couple so I asked the husband to come and join his sweet tender wife in my office.

I assured the couple that many men have fallen into the temptation of asking their wives to participate in acts that are degrading in nature. On this blog due to the sacred nature of the temple I cannot go into details but I did clarify with the couple that this is precisely why we make sacred oaths to not engage in impure and unholy practices.  

I took out from my desk a folder that the previous stake president had left behind on the subject that I have often benefited from in counseling with members.  I had Brother McCulloch read this quote from our loving Apostle Boyd K. Packer:
"What if the person asking you to engage in something defiling is your husband, whom you love? A married couple may be tempted to introduce things into their relationship which are unworthy. Do not, as the scriptures warn, 'change the natural use into that which is against nature' (Romans 1:26). If you do, the tempter will drive a wedge between you."

Brother McCulloch went completely red in the face as the Lord was teaching him through the reading of this quote. I hope that not wanting to drive a wedge between him and his wife will be enough to deter him from such base desires going forward. Divorce is so rampant these days and President Packer has given a very important clue here as to how to have a more fulfilling marriage.

We then read this quote which comes from a First Presidency letter with regards to interviewing. It was addressed to all leaders from Bishops up and is crystal clear in stating:
“The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”

The McCulloch’s asked to see the letter. I consider it every member’s right to know the position of our prophets, seers and revelators on this very important topic so I handed it to them and would be happy to post it here if requested.

We continued with a quote from a good friend of mine Elder Spencer J. Condie who said: "Unfortunately, some married couples fail to realize that sexual experiences were never intended by the Lord to be a mere plaything or merely to satisfy passions and lusts. When couples….participate in unholy practices, what should be a spiritually bonding element in their marriage may actually become a disruptive force.”

Here again we are learning from our leaders that a key to a successful marriage is staying away from unholy sexual practices.

I explained to the couple that sexual relations in marriage are not unrestrained. We must remember that life was not designed just for sex. Even marriage does not make proper certain extremes in sexual indulgence. The Lord's loving condemnation of sin included secret sexual sins in marriage when he revealed this to the pure hearted prophet Joseph Smith: "And those who are not pure…. shall be destroyed" (D&C 132:52)"

President Spencer W. Kimball said "If it is unnatural, you just don't do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it."

President Howard W. Hunter said “Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Any indecent or uncontrolled behavior in the intimate relationship between husband and wife is condemned by the Lord. Pornography and unwholesome fantasies erode one’s character and strike at the foundation of a happy marriage.”

I hope the message is clear to all readers. A happy marriage is based on controlled and disciplined intimate behavior, free from all unwholesome fantasies. Please don’t do anything that would allow Satan to ruin the foundation of your marriages.

I ended the interview with this quote from the aforementioned letter from the First Presidency which states that "Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices.”  Based on this instruction I asked the couple to report back in one month on their progress, after which I will be happy to sign their recommends.

Brothers and Sisters aren’t you thankful to the Lord that the apostles and prophets never waver on sin? No matter how strong the winds of public opinion may blow, the Church remains steadfast and immovable in protecting marriages and families against the wiles of the tempter.

President Paternoster

Since some of you have requested to see the letter of which I spoke I have edited this blog post and attached both pages below.  I apologize though that the lettering is so small. If anyone is good with photo editing and can enlarge this I will re-post.  I noticed if I click on the images twice they become readable. Allow me to quote directly from page 2 in case the lettering is too small for some: “In interviewing one for a temple recommend, the individual being interviewed should be reminded that the Lord has said that no unclean thing should enter His house…. Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices…… The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”
The letter is signed by the First Presidency including Gordon B. Hinckley


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 344 of 344
Cindy said...

yes this post seemed to peak my interest a little more. Manly because it really did provide some answers to some of the things I have been taught or have heard from other members over the years.

I don't know if I agree about it being a complete spoof. Even if President Paternoster isn't a current stake president I still think he must have had some leadership roles within the church to write what he has written. I also think he does care about the church and maybe creating awareness of these issues is what he really wants to do.

The letter written doesn't bother me in the slightest, neither does any of the other quotes he has included in various other posts. I'm not ashamed of my religion, I welcome any information that is out there (concerning the gospel) as long as that information is comeing from the right source (ie prophets and apostles).

Some people have critized the use of opionions, well, what did God give us a brain for then if we aren't suposed to say what we think aobut anything? Leaders of the church often have to give council and that council is often based on material available to them, the knowledge they have, their experiences and their thoughts on the matter. Sometimes their council will hit the mark and other times it won't, that's just reality.

Anonymous said...

I've learned a lot from this post & from all those commenting. I've learned I've come to a good place for humor, knowledge, satire, truth, some wise & clever brains, some stupidity, deep doctrinal knowledge, unusual logic but some right on and more. It makes me laugh & makes me wonder. So thx everyone!

Aurora said...

That's like saying Stephen Colbert is a spoof and not sincere about his support for hard conservative values. Some people just don't recognize sincerity!

And as far as people being surprised by my wisdom at my age, keep in mind that mine is the chosen generation held in reserve for these the latter days. You have to expect more out of us, especially those of us who went through early morning seminary and gone through Personal Progress and gotten our Young Womanhood Recognition Award, which by the way, is just as demanding as the Eagle Scout Award.

I know you probably think the older generations are the chosen generations because they've been saying that for decades, but think how much more true it is for us, since we were saved for even MORE latter days.

Just something to think about. Remember, out of the mouth of babes and sucklings.

God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob said...

Hearken, O ye people of my church, and hear my voice while it is called today, and harden not your hearts. Behold, thus saith the Lord your God unto you, hearken ye and hear, and receive my will concerning you, for verily I say unto you that these things were spoken unto you for your profit and learning. Behold, I am God; give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my word.

Nevertheless, I am not well pleased with many things; and I am not well pleased with my servant Daryl Young, and others have many things to repent of. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words, yet you should have been faithful, that you may have been supported against all the fiery darts of the adversary. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you through my servants, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work, yea which work is my glory.

Wherefore, let my servant William Paternoster, in whom I am well pleased, go forth among the churches and strengthen them by the word of exhortation, saying nothing but repentance unto this generation; Let him keep my commandments, and assist to bring forth my work, according to my commandments which I have delivered unto my seer of old, even Spencer W. Kimball, that the world may be edified thereby.

For thus saith the Lord God, my servant Spencer W. Kimball is a choice seer, and he has been esteemed highly among the people of my church, yea, even in bringing out of darkness and into light that great miracle, yea, even that miracle which is forgiveness. And unto him I gave a commandment that he shall he shall instruct those who enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant, that they may know that inasmuch as they follow after the dictates of their own will and carnal desires, they must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God.

Therefore, my servant Daryl Young, and others, who have set at naught the counsels of God, and have broken the most sacred promises which were made before God, and have depended upon their own judgment and boasted in their own wisdom, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God.

Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him. O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.

For this generation which resides in the Stake of Zion which has has been appointed shall have my word through my chosen servant, even William Paternoster, with whom I am well pleased. Nevertheless, let him remain humble, for although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him. But let him finish his work that I may receive him unto myself, even as I did my servant Spencer W. Kimball, who is with me at this time, and also my servant N. Eldon Tanner, and also my aged servant Marion G. Romney, who sitteth with Abraham at his right hand, and blessed and holy are they, for they are mine. Pray always, that ye may not faint, until I come. Behold, and lo, I will come quickly, and receive you unto myself. Amen.

R. Nephi Samuelson said...

Dear President,
Thank you for your poignant and uplifting message on how we can strengthen our marriages through obedience to wise prophetic council. My beloved eternal companion and I have tried at all times and against all manner of temptations to keep our intimate marital relationship sacred and within the bounds the Lord has set. While our personal marital relationship may not be considered a wild and passionate relationship by the world’s standards, it is nevertheless a fulfilling relationship in the bedroom, and we find that the Lord is an intimate third partner in the success of our joy-filled experiences expressed through our eternal bond. Prayer, scripture study and sacred distance have allowed our deeply personal marital encounters to be a thing of beauty as we employ the power of procreation in the way our Father in Heaven intended, leaving our mouths for kissing and the expression of kind and loving words.

May you be continually blessed for your efforts in spreading the beauty of the gospel in the empty desert wastes of the internet.

-R. Nephi Samuelson

Aurora said...

Would it be accurate to say that because missionary work is one of the main missions of the Church, that the missionary position is the only true and living sexual position in which the Lord God is well pleased? Other positions draw near to the woman's temple with their lips, but their hearts are far from them..

Stake Pres. said...

Thank you all for your inspiring words.

Aurora, I think you should come and meet with me in private to discuss your questions and concerns. Will you be at the stake centre this Sabbath?

Aurora said...

Of course. I'll come by your office after Relief Society.

desert dispatches said...

I just want to know how someone knows President Paternoster is in the UK? I read this darn blog all the darn time, and this is the first time I am reading about this....

Sister Stephenson said...

You know what sucks? Me!
I will not be in the highest heaven.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, what's up with that UK stuff? I thought pres was in ut!??

And hey God dude, I want my own thus sayeth the lord!

Bro Jenssen said...

He very much certainly is the real deal!
We, as members have the inspiration to be able to discern the difference, sir!

"Those chosen represent the many called."

deacon said...



Catherine Pillinger said...

@Sister Stephenson... that's okay, you'll be able to hang out with Mother Theresa in a lower level of heaven. I hear she's nice. Unfortunately unless I repent and return to the fold, I'll be in outer darkness. I can't recall if I've denied the Holy Ghost, but I've got quite a nice little second income selling my tokens and signs.

Anonymous said...

Jenssen "Inspired members chosen"

I'm not a sir. I'm a madam. Did you make sure you're plugged in into your inspiration source?

Anonymous said...

I vote that president paternoster is a british utah resident

anonymous 666 said...

Sorry the above is a different anonymous. I'll go for anonymous #666.

Stake Pres. said...

A British Utah resident? I'm surprised no one is guessing that I'm one of the three Nephites.

Peter Jefferson said...

President, do you not realize that the Lord God Almighty has left a revelation on your blog? What mana from heaven this is! Truly this is a marvelous work and a wonder! How blessed we are to live in a day when revelation is had again on the face of the earth!

This revelation should be included in your stake's book of commandments and made binding upon all the saints in your stewardship! Will you submit it to the membership for a sustaining vote next stake conference?

Stake Pres. said...

It shall be done Brother Jefferson.

Anonymous said...

He's not a Church leader but a pathetic buffoon. Has nothing better to do.

He invited all of his anti-Mormon friends to join in on the lies and untruthfulness.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous "buffoon"

You do not know your mormon doctrine if you are claiming the President is full of anti-mormon information.

I'm sorry, very, very sorry for you!

anonymous 666 said...

I seriously hope that anonymous "buffoon" is not an active Latter-day Saint. What faithful member would call the words of our presious leaders (and I'm not refering to President Paternoster but to the prophets seers and revelators he quotes from) "lies and untruthfulness"? Have you even read his posts, have you varified his information from the sources he gets them from like the Church handbook, the official church website LDS.org, talks from our beloved prophets and apostles? If you have a problem with the teachings of this church then maybe there is something wrong with you. You can shoot the messanger all you want (in this case it's Bill Paternoster)but sooner or later you need to deal with the message!

Anonymous said...

Brethren and sisters, let us take care to heed with exactness the words of the First Presidency shared with us by President Paternoster.

It saddened me to read the comments that this principle is not taught today. If a First Presidency letter is insufficient for those of wavering faith, let them reread of the destruction of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and then consult a dictionary for the definition of "sodomy".

Brethren and sisters, are we to set at naught the battles the Church has fought to protect the holy institution of marriage? How can any sex practice be pure and holy that is performed within the unholy so-called "same"-"sex" "marriages"? Learn the lesson of Proposition 8 and abstain from such!

I must speak plainly for a moment. I apologize especially to the sisters, but necessity compels complete frankness. Do not heed those who use the strengthening of the marriage bond to rationalize oral sex. By the same reasoning might they rationalize all manner of lewdness, anal penetration (even that of the brethren by means of so-called "sex" "toys"), bondage, pornography, fisting, vibrators, and licentiousness.

Must the First Presidency write letters concerning each of these impure practices? Brethren and sisters, it is not meet that we should be commanded in all things. It is a blessing to use our own discernment in these matters.

Dave said...

Its an annoying spoof because people think its real taught LDS philosophy & doctrine. Its very misleading and he alsways teaches false doctrines taught by hearsay and not from LDS hand book or approved church publications. Nearly every subject in his blogs have some sort of false information in it.

Imagine if he was a real stake President - he's very conceited at the same time as weak minded & wishy washy. I couldnt sustain him

R. Nephi Samuelson said...

Brother Dave,
I must respectfully disagree with your dismissal of this sacred teaching, which expounds upon the covenants made in the Holy Temple, that of avoiding any unholy and impure practice. My dear eternal companion and I have followed this wise counsel regarding oral sex ever since we heard this prophetic admonition over the pulpit in our BYU student ward. We noted with displeasure that there were many in our young ward who expressed dismay about such an admonition, but my sweet wife and I knew we must obey or find ourselves in opposition with the Lord.

Please re-read the letter posted in this blog and consider that your position may be one of rebellion against our Father’s plan of happiness. It is the small things which Satan uses to lead us from the safety of the commandments, and the guidance of living prophets who stand as watchmen on the tower.

Discussion of this subject often leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but thanks to President Paternoster, we have an open forum to lay straight the way and discuss that which will serve us all in reaching the goal of exaltation.

Follow the prophet Brother Dave, follow the prophet.

Your Brother in the Gospel,

-R. Nephi Samuelson

Cognitive Dissenter said...

Jesus Christ.

(P.S. My captcha is "repente." Fat chance.)

Stake Pres. said...

CD you will repent. Every knee shall bow and every tongue guilty of impure practises will confess.

Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance.

Anonymous said...

Sindafell68 says
Thankyou President Paternoster for having the same courage that Adam displayed in the garden of Eden when the Lord put in place the first recorded act of bureaucracy. Stating clearly that (the policy was for) Adam and Eve to abstain from partaking of the fruit. Without the occasional inspired display of such courage, to make one's OWN decisions, Adam would never have the opportunity to progress then, as we wouldn't now. This subject has weighed heavily on my heart and mind for over 4 decades, so the understanding that I now have, I would love to share with all you “bloggers”.

Zippy said...

President Paternoster,

I’m joining this conversation late. I do hope you are still following and responding to this thread.

My wife and I are faithful, temple-attending members of the church. Before we had our first child, my wife read an article claiming that women that ingest their husband’s semen are much less likely to suffer miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, and blood conflicts between the mother and fetus. I’ve posted the link to the Wikipedia article on fellatio at the end of this post so that you and your many readers might see the details and scientific citations for this assertion.

My very health conscious dear wife has several sisters that have suffered miscarriages and of course many of her friends and acquaintances have suffered at least one. She initially suggested engaging in this practice. We were torn: we try very hard to follow all the teachings of the gospel and make corrections when we fall short but we also wanted to have healthy children and pregnancies. I’m ashamed to admit that we began engaging in the practice of oral sex. When I “finished” she would keep my organ in her mouth using her tongue and lips to manipulate the top of the shaft for 30-40 additional seconds ensuring I had discharged completely. She would then swallow my semen. We engaged in this behavior regularly for six months before we planned to try to become pregnant. It started off once-a-week or so but when I would remind her of all the health benefits we engaged in the practice 10-14 times a week.

Obviously, we stopped the prohibited practice during her pregnancies but would resume again for 2-4 months before we would try to get pregnant again. We now have seven beautiful girls. While we are open to more children we are likely done and have stopped the practice entirely. My question to you is, since swallowing a husband’s semen provides such salutary health effects were we in the wrong for our limited engagement of this practice? Can we still attend the temple or need we confess to our Bishop? Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide.


Stake Pres. said...

That's a great question Zippy. I certainly can't speak to the health effects but with regards to what goes on in the bedroom you may indeed ask your Bishop. He will likely tell you (as per his instructions in fact) that if you are uncomfortable with anything to the point where you have to ask about it then perhaps you should stop.

If he happens to have the letter attached to my blog post such as was the case with me (i.e. I didn't bring up the subject but was specifically asked about oral sex, and happened to have a letter which addressed the topic) then he may decide to share that with you.

I will leave that and your worthiness to attend the temple in his most capable hands, but would be very interested in his response if you care to share it with us.

sindafella said...

You quote from Apostle Boyd K. Packer. “Do not, as the scriptures warn, 'change the natural use into that which is against nature' (Romans 1:26). If you do, the tempter will drive a wedge between you". From a much disputed letter allegedly from the first presidency. “The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.” (Sorry the size made it illegible, but I will come back to this later).
You also shared the comments of Elder Spencer J. Condie "Unfortunately, some married couples fail to realize that sexual experiences were never intended by the Lord to be a mere plaything or merely to satisfy passions and lusts. When couples….participate in unholy practices, what should be a spiritually bonding element in their marriage may actually become a disruptive force.”
Finally, you quote President Howard W. Hunter. “Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Any indecent or uncontrolled behaviour in the intimate relationship between husband and wife is condemned by the Lord. Pornography and unwholesome fantasies erode one’s character and strike at the foundation of a happy marriage.”
The blog debate has centred around two questions. “Which” sexual experiences were never intended by the the “Lord”, and are those experiences the doctrines of God or the philosophies of man? Both questions deserve proper recognition REGARDLESS of one's relationship with the LDS church.

sindafella said...

Sorry. 1st time blogger. This should precede my "last" posting.
Thankyou President Paternoster for having the same courage that Adam displayed in the garden of Eden when the Lord put in place the first recorded act of bureaucracy. Stating clearly that (the policy was for) Adam and Eve to abstain from partaking of the fruit. Without the occasional inspired display of such courage, to make one's OWN decisions, Adam would never have the opportunity to progress then, as we wouldn't now. This subject has weighed heavily on my heart and mind for over 4 decades, so the understanding that I now have, I would love to share with all you “bloggers”.
The reason I use a pseudonym is to protect the identity of my former wives and my children. I was not brought up in the church so was deprived of the opportunity to bring this subject up with a church leader at an appropriate time as “sister Mc Culloch”, and had no cause to discontinue the practise of oral sex.
The language used in the blog has sometimes been emotive both “for” and “against”. Though this is not entirely helpful, neither is the rationalising helpful when it ignores the very real passions involved. To ask why “a priesthood holder would require such atrocities” has been asked in a manner which puts some “on a defensive”. A few isolated incidents can have life changing results. We can all attest to that. Suffice it to say that I gained a desire to perform oral sex well before I met my first wife. To declare your approach to intimacy with your wife, was naiive. To some small degree it undermined your point of oral sex as being “degrading in nature” (raising debate) though your handling of the couple concerned showed a real love and concern which must be commended.

sindafella said...

Responding to Insana D, could you really have missed the point so widely that Pres P was making, or were you just having a bit of a chuckle? Being “past child bearing age” is not an indication “that intimate relations are no longer necessary or sanctioned in the eyes of the Lord.” Such was not conveyed at any time. I sincerely hope that my own amusement was something which you intended when you state, “I can assure my husband that a soft cuddle and gentle pat on the head should satisfy his need for affection”. You make a very significant point, perhaps also in jest, that being “vigilant in suppressing any other needs he will someday be as restrained as Elder Packer.” As we are here to learn from our own experience, it is all too common that unrighteous expectations are foisted on the unwary by the uncaring. The goal MIGHT be correct (I don't know or even care) but as I am not an apostle, I take the time to enjoy your frivolity concerning “devotion to the holy garments and careful orchestration of turning the lights out”. The key here is “here a little, there a little, line upon line”.

sindafella said...

Responding to Marymaynard, as another man once said to me in justification of his own adultery “a stiff penis has little conscience”. Many involved in the practise of oral sex either don't feel degraded or will actively SEEK for such feelings in order to intensify the sensual even further. The analogy which you make to your dogs is not quite on track. Whilst you make brief forays to the top of the cliff, you have not really “taken the plunge”.

sindafella said...

Responding to Brigham Taft Pratt, who claims “I was shocked to see my wife enter the room in a little black bra and lacy panties” and who “wasted no time chastising my young wife”. I am a “satin and nylon fan” myself so I share your (feigned) “shock”, with another little chuckle that you no doubt intended. More seriously though, when “she was back in her wholesome garments and sniffling quietly to herself” (if that ever really happened in the way in which YOU convey it), explain to me how her distress will endear you to her. How will her misery ever be a “win” for you?Be warned that if you continue to treat her as a child and truly believe “that she had to obey my righteous counsel”, the “child” will grow, rebel, and you will inherit the wind.

sindafella said...

Responding to Anonymous, my dear and precious sister. I feel the anxiety of your heart. How selflessly you must have tried to be a “pleasing” help mate to your husband over your 25 years of “marriage”. Check the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. She had been married 5 times “but had never a husband”. Earlier in my own life, I would have relished the “attention” that you gave, and of which I never received. Would we have once been suited to one another? I was the one rendering this (unasked for) “service” and thereby unwittingly depriving my wife of the emotional satisfaction for which she silently craved. Your “husband” may also have been deprived in like manner, and MAY NOT HAVE EVEN RECOGNISED IT let alone how to explain those feelings in a way that you could understand. He could well be thinking, “Stiff penis, great sex, sorry to loose her, life goes on”. I plead with you in all the tender feelings I have, and from the lessons I've learnt, don't give away your own power of decision making to someone who neither wants it, asks for it or even realise he has it! Don't allow his lack of understanding deter you in your own progress. I love you. The Lord loves you far more. PLEASE, print this blog and take it to your bishop. DON'T procrastinate. Do it NOW while the spirit is still testifying strongly of the truthfulness of my words.

sindafella said...

First response to Daryl Young, my heart goes out to you in your diligent (if somewhat repetitive) strivings to see that we are not led astray from the inspired words of God and the proper administration of the church. You share much with the Apostle Paul who also strived diligently in the understanding that he had been taught from his youth “at the feet Gamaliel”. Along with Paul in his early days, you have displayed great intelligence but little understanding. As I have read your words, even I have felt the spirit gently tugging on the reigns of your heart as he has revealed them to me. You are a man of great potential but are in grave danger of wasting the very real knowledge you have acquired. Just the same as Paul,your declared intentions are not in line with your true feelings though. You know this as well as other bloggers and I do.
Pres P “does not speak for the church”; any more than you or I do. We both know that Daryl, don't we. However, to state “that stewardship is only within the bounds of inspired church policy” is the first incorrect allegation. We both know that as well Daryl, don't we. We don't have to hold office in the church or even be a member “to be our brother's keeper”. We both know that Daryl, don't we. Being a home teacher is merely an added tool derived from church policy that helps us focus on the priesthood responsibility of that “duty of care” given in the garden of Eden. We both know that Daryl, don't we. Later you assert that “if personal practices were a "sin" then it would have been written”. That is wrong as well Daryl, but we both know that don't we. Necrophilia and coprophilia are not given a mention in church literature specifically by name either, but are you trying to assert these “unholy and impure practises” have an AUTHORITIVE basis for practise? (Come on you jokers, there's got to be a punch line here somewhere so long as we are not to be “given to much laughter”).

sindafella said...

Daryl, you later assert that due to “personal opinion, there is nothing wrong within the marriage when you both agree”. That is wrong again Daryl, but we both know that don't we. If you both agree to stand in front of a train, swallow vast amounts of pills or jump from an ocean going vessel, there will be consequences that are in line with the decisions we make, regardless of the opinion we had to start with. No-one can separate opinion from decision making and the ultimate result. Of course you are far too clever to promote oral sex directly and I must admit that I have been where you are now at. Your inference by quoting from the handbook that “sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife” is that oral sex is approved because (like necrophilia and coprophilia) it is not specifically declared against.
My dear brother, the internet provides a similar cloak of anonymity as do the scriptures. Personally I don't care if “President Paternoster” or “Sister McCulloch” are pseudonyms. They know who they are and will (as you infer) be held accountable. Are we personally acquainted with Abram who became Abraham? Jacob changed his name to Israel and early copies of D &C had many leaders referred to by pseudonyms. The spirit of what was given us, is far more important than if some letter of church policy has been infringed. No doubt you will feel free to ignore our opinion if you have nothing to learn from our experience, especially if you have had personal visitation from God and specific revelation on this tender and most personal topic. As individuals in our own right we don't NEED “church authority” to have a web site. Come on Daryl, we all know that don't we. In fact, I would go even further, “The rule book has it's place for those who are afraid to make their OWN decisions” (but that is my own “unauthorised” opinion).

sindafella said...

Daryl, we then move on to “a letter that was briefly circulated by the first presidency in 1982 [which] included oral sex to be considered among [unholy and impure] acts, [which has] not been officially rescinded”. From this point on you have shown great resolve to your own interpretation of the handbook. I am glad you haven't been a British bus driver! A handbook of British Public Service law was held by many a driver. In it, the public were forbidden to carry “fire-arms, explosive or combustible material”. No doubt you would have exercised the full extent of the law and against common sense to the purpose for which the law was made, you would refuse entry to children with “cap” guns, water pistols, old men laden with paint, and old ladies with cardboard boxes of cereal! As Satan quotes the scriptures which are held in dispute by so many denying the spirit thereof, your claim to “quote from the (old) LDS handbook of instructions and official church documents from the First Presidency” is totally without authoritative foundation. What you have written “is actually against the First Presidency and thus regarded as personal opinion only and still possibly unwittingly against church official council”.

sindafella said...

Responding briefly to Christopher Allen Smith. I understand the intent of the question you pose “would you be comfortable participating in oral sex in God's presence?” It is not helpful. Do you really view God as a glorified omnipotent voyeur? I would be unhappy even with any photo of another man in my bedroom, regardless of what I may be doing there! I cannot even imagine that our Saviour and God, the creator of our world would demean himself by such a practise.

sindafella said...

Responding briefly to Sister Jensen Christiansen. If your husband knew that he had micro-penis and withheld that information before you married then you were sadly deceived. No-one would righteously stand in “judgement” on you for declaring your resultant frustrations. The fact that you haven't strayed from the marital bed (as yet) speaks well of you. If that is not a pseudonym you are using, I suspect you are already considering to do so. Not all is necessarily lost. Having regretfully failed to satisfy the emotional needs of two wives, I would ask that if you are now considering “moving on” because you also feel emotionally unfulfilled, firstly talk it out at length with your husband. Don't make swift and rash decisions based on your present feelings alone. If you really have to consider divorce, do it as lovingly as is possible. Don't wait until the temptation of adultery overtakes you. As I have said before, we are here to learn from our own experience and whilst you may currently enjoy the intensity of oral pleasure, unless the issue of emotional needs are properly addressed, you WILL act unilaterally.

sindafella said...

Responding briefly to Brother Heber. I know the desire and temptation. I've been there more than once and it's possible I'll go there again. Cleave to, and be grateful for the wife you have. She has a sure knowledge of what path to avoid. The intensity of oral pleasure can only be matched by the intensity of emotional pain.

Responding briefly to Legal Eagle. How I truly wish there was “a five year statute of limitations” on all of the temptations or results we endure because of them. If it were so then I'd be first in line to watch a whole list of R-rated movies that I am aware of, but have never seen. Better still, I could even star in them. Great idea, just not very practical! (Having another little chuckle?)

sindafella said...

Responding briefly to Stake Pres. Oral sex IS DOCTRINALLY WRONG. Daryl Young wanted proof, but he may well reject the proof as he seems unwilling to acknowledge the spirit with which the scriptures (and to some extent, the handbooks) have been written. It is in the bible, one of the four standard works from which he wanted his proof. I refer you to Proverbs 5 :18 -19 (if you have the ears with which to hear). I hope we will meet one day however briefly. Now that I have that understanding, I can see on reflection that if I could have had such simple counsel 40 years ago, from some-one I could trust, I would still be with my first wife, she would have been emotionally fulfilled, and my two boys would have grown in the gospel. She would not have 3 broken marriages behind her, and 4 children without proper guidance.

sindafella said...

Returning to my responses to Daryl Young. Have you such a short memory? In your blog of May 24 1:10 P.M. you acknowledge “a letter that was briefly circulated by the first presidency in 1982 [which] included oral sex to be considered among [unholy and impure] acts, [which has] not been officially rescinded”. Then at 7:49 you deny your former acknowledgement. When you argue with your own words stating that “The word "oral" has never been mentioned in the history of any official handbook or letter”. At 10:42 you retract again, this time acknowledging the letter once again but desperately trying to avoid recognising it as “doctrine”. The timing of the responses would indicate that you have too much time to sit around calculating what to write without giving proper thought as to how inconsistent you are being in what you say, in spite of your predilection for your parrot like ability to quote from the (old) handbook.
What exactly do you NOT UNDERSTAND? The Stake President DID NOT “engage in personal bedroom activities between husband and wife”. He RESPONDED to a legitimate question in a very appropriate manner.
You seem obsessed with idea that this blog has been set up for the specific purpose of “proving” something to your satisfaction, and then gleefully ignore what you are being told. I haven't quite worked out why you are doing this yet. Something about “life” and “getting one” comes to mind. Daryl, please be assured that there are many on this blog that are genuinely concerned for you. We will never be able to reach you while you hold the view that life is no more than an argument to be won! You haven't “taken me in” at any time. You are more intelligent than the parrot-like qualities you persist in feeding to us for our consumption.
Infallibility of prophets and apostles is not, nor has it ever been, a doctrine of the Church. We both know that, don't we Daryl. (I must admit that there does seem to be a significant minority that erroneously subscribe to that view without qualifying the statement). However, to say “they are wise men [who] enjoy a special relationship with God because of their callings” is wrong. That special relationship is the result of many years experience paying heed to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. Again, we both know that, don't we Daryl. I know that you have experienced those promptings in the past even if they don't manifest themselves in your life so strongly now. [Leaders] must be tried and tested like everyone else, and they make big “mistakes” (Romans 8:28) but we can forgive their follies as we would want our own follies to be forgiven, can't we Daryl?
When “some people” are so obsessive fulfilling the letter of the law that they forget the spirit of the law. It is hard isn't Daryl. When they teach “their lesson” reproving at times with sharpness but failing to be moved upon by the Holy Ghost and failing to show forth love after the event it hurts, doesn't it Daryl. When “they” are so busy with their church work, “they” have little time for their own children and are so set on arguing their “religion” that they alienate others in their zeal to be right, would you want to follow an example like that Daryl? I know that you are made of better stuff than that and have more intelligence don't you Daryl. I don't point any fingers because, “that which I would, I do not, and that which I would not, that I do”. There is a great deal more going on in your life than you would cheerfully put on display in this blog, isn't there Daryl. Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy? I don't have any ready answers on this one for you Daryl, but I do believe you can find them if you wish. A word of warning though, if you don't resolve this issue soon, you WILL drive your new-found family away in your “youth-taught zeal to be right”. One last thing which I hope you will find helpful if you continue in your search for “truth”; it is seldom used alone in the scripture. Check it out and prove me wrong!

sindafella said...

A few words to respond to Lisa. Embrace the knowledge that you are now acquiring and don't leave the church. A man doesn't live on the foundations of a house alone. He even waits well beyond the time the walls are built. He probably wouldn't even move in when the roof is in place. If the builders make a few mistakes on the way, we can still relish their endeavours on our behalf when the shelter it provides will protect us from the coming storms. Growth cannot come without change.

sindafella said...

Responding to Mrs Molly Smith who is “torn between obeying [her] husband or pleasing the prophet”. Molly, I am sure you realise how precarious your relationship with your husband has become. I cannot imagine that you have not been on your knees in prayer to seek for wisdom from God. If you haven't that is your first “port of call”. I repeat PRAY FOR THAT WISDOM from God that you stand in such earnest need of. Remember that you too …. are a spirit daughter of Heavenly parents.
Secondly DON'T ACT IN HASTE. Though it is your right and privilege to “learn line upon line, here a little, there a little,” so too is it your husbands privilege also. Speaking as a man that had once quoted prophets and scripture in order to “prove how right I was” I learnt with (the wonderful gift of) hindsight it did nothing to enhance the relationship that I had with my wife. In my second marriage, I was on the “receiving” end. If she wanted me to live according to “apostolic” standards, then she should have waited for an apostle to propose marriage to her. Don't think for a minute you need to justify your OWN feelings by quoting others, and avoid placing unrighteous expectations of “instant change” either. My attitude towards my second wife gradually soured partly because I couldn't hold a conversation with her.
Thirdly, all relationships are a negotiation. It seems that you have given him “free reign” so far. If he wants to “dictate” a practise, you could start to “negotiate a change in terms”. This COULD lead to some conflict, but you will swiftly learn just how gently you need to challenge his current mindset. It is better that we pass through the bad that we might know the good (paraphrase of the greatest pep-talk in history).You will also swiftly find out if he has any consideration for YOUR feelings. I repeat; DON'T ACT IN HASTE.
Lastly, assert the right to have some FUN with your husband; outside the bedroom as well as in. Any change will be a lot more palatable when you are both having FUN.

sindafella said...

Responding to Carolyn. I too baulked at the enactment of the “penalties” when they used to be part of the endowment, but I also recall being told “you won't understand it all at first. YOU MUST KEEP COMING BACK”. One prophet (I can't remember which) said, “I have been performing the endowment every week for 50 years. I think I am just beginning to get an idea of what some of it means”. We are not left alone in our endeavours to understand the endowment. With each attendance, the Holy Ghost will bear witness to those things most relevant to us as individuals as and when we need it IF we will make ourselves aware of his promptings.

There is some truth in what you say about the church being led by policy which seems intended to keep things “palatable”. There is nothing new here. When Paul preached to the “gentiles”, the Jews which had grown used to the law of circumcision wanted that law imposed on gentile converts. (Acts 15: 1 – 12; 16: 1 – 3). Also, when Aaron received his “washing” it was done very publicly at the door of the tabernacle. (Exodus 29: 4). Today the ordinance is done symbolically, (and very discreetly, for which I am very grateful).

If we don't require things to be so much “in your face” now, as indicated from the questionnaire concerning peoples feelings about the temple, (which I was unaware of), what purpose would it serve to continue offending those who have a “different” perspective concerning these sacred ordinances?

When I first started attending the endowment, I too, had thought that the “penalties” were to be taken literally. (With that wonderful gift of hindsight) I now recognise that they could also be taken symbolically. The first could be the loss of testimony due to a lack of integrity and understanding, (the head), the second could be loss of testimony due to hurt feelings, (the heart), and the third a loss of testimony due to a lack of “feeding” it, (the bowels). These “penalties” were specifically connected with their respective covenants. I will say no more.

The parallel you try to make between the blacks and homosexuality is completely without any foundation altogether. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been spoken against in the scriptures, but priesthood has at certain times in history been based on lineage. Firstly it was the prerogative of the first-born males, then the sons of Aaron and finally to the tribe of Levi. Cain was denied it, as was Canaan. Homosexuals will NEVER be admitted to the priesthood UNTIL they have properly put this practise behind them.

Anonymous said...

This blog post is crazy! And not in a good way. And I'm appaled that you would shun your wife like that on your wedding night. No where ever does the church condo having SEX to better your marriage or better yet to consumate! There are many books actually approved by the church and first presidency about bring intimacy into the marriage and bettering your sex life. Our bishop gave it to us. You sir are totally taking scripture grossly out of context. That's what happens when you try to be your own prophet and receive revelation.

sindafella said...

Responding to erin_josephine and Carolyn, I was interested in the facts you posted concerning the rates of orgasm amongst women and of course I cannot dispute them. I personally have never had “the pleasure” of 750/0 of all known women. You may even be able to quote an “authoritative” study on the subject but as you have already indicated, not everybody actually tells the truth.

It is disorienting and can be disturbing, to recognise that some things (including plural marriage) are no longer openly TAUGHT in the church. It is ETERNAL marriage (not plural marriage) which is the next step that most people on earth require in order to progress. PLURAL marriage IS NOT essential to our progress at this stage (even if it's required of a few later), and cannot legally be practised (because of the opposition which you are already aware of). Therefore, it is NOT ESSENTIAL to be taught in our Sunday School or other classes either. It is not an attempt to “cover up” or hide HISTORY or even to rewrite it. Why make a stumbling block out of something that is not essential? Perhaps you would like to bring back circumcision (crossing my legs and wincing at the thought).

As an aside, plural marriage when practised, is not adultery. From what I understand from those women who have had adulterous husbands, it was NOT the adultery that made them angry, but more often, the unrighteous expectations and coercion preceding the act and the lying, cheating and deceiving involved in the act.

sindafella said...

To all you "anonymous" out there, if you consider your comments are worth making, someone may consider them worth responding to. PLEASE adress the person's "handle" so we know "who" you are commenting to and PLEASE use SOME sort of "handle" of your own so we know who to respond to. THANKYOU.

sindafella said...

Responding to Zippy. I was absolutely intrigued with your posting and (while some may have gone to the loo to throw up) I went to the wikipedia site you posted. Whilst I am in full agreement with pres P's response, I would like to make a few “observations” if I may.
The website you posted also stated “that it would be impossible to assume conclusively the likely protective effect of ….. oral sex, or ….. was due to the presence of collinearity induced by some other protective factor not noted in the studies: for example, greater overall frequency of sex.
You also failed to mention the link between HPV and oral cancer (same website). Performing unprotected oral sex on a person infected with HPV might increase the risk of oral cancer. The study found that 36 percent of the cancer patients had HPV compared to only 1 percent of the healthy control group. Another recent study suggests a correlation between oral sex and throat cancer. It is believed that this is due to the transmission of human papillomavirus (HPV). The study concludes that people who had one to five oral-sex partners in their lifetime had approximately a doubled risk of throat cancer compared with those who never engaged in this activity and those with more than five oral-sex partners had a 250 percent increased risk.
You're own words were “I’m ashamed to admit that we began engaging in the practice of oral sex”, are reminiscent to me of words I'd heard elsewhere, “a stiff penis has little conscience”. In the face of such willing “attention” from your wife, I would have been very hard pressed to resist in the same circumstances. Once you had received her “attention” I think you probably “didn't need” to remind her of the “health” benefits.
Something which I believe but for which I have no “proof”of any kind, is that within any relationship, the sex of the children are determined by the “leading” or “dominant” partner (at the time of conception). I note your wife had several sisters, and now you have seven beautiful girls.

Anonymous said...

Dear so called "President Paternoster",

If you are in fact a real Stake President for the LDS church, please post what stake in the church you are currently a stake president for. I can very easily verify your legitimacy if you post what stake your a stake president for. If you do not reply, or reply with any excuse why you can not tell what stake you are a stake president for, it will be painfully obvious that you are a fake, as well as many of your so called "posters". If you willing to post members private interview content (regarless of giving false member names) you surly would be willing to back your validity up by posting what stake your a Stake President over. But,I'm sure you wont even post this comment. That is why I am going to also post this comment on other blogs that are questioning your legitimacy as a Stake President, and I will also update those site's with your return comment, or non-return comment. If you are in fact a "true" Stake President, you have broken several of the Church's guidelines as a Stake President by the information you posted about any interview you "so called" had with members, which in turn reveals your a "wolf in sheeps clothing" anyway. Its sad to see Satan is alive and well in the hearts of people like you.

Stake Pres. said...

O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!
Why are ye offended at the words of the Lord Brother Anonymous?
For it is written that whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Anonymous said...

Dear President Apostate (I mean Paternoster), Absolutely Priceless! Just as I expected, no answer to my question of what Stake you are over as a "Stake President". If you want to be taken for real, the only answer to my question of "what stake are you over" is the actual stake you are over. No "quote's of scripture" to divert away from the actual answer. It's really easy, just post what stake your over and I will research it. If your telling the truth, I will post it for everyone to see. But I guarantee if you do respond at all, you will respond with something other than the actual stake you are over.

Its so obvious its comical! To everyone reading this, be assured that this poser "Stake President" person, has not posted this blog to be a harmless spoof. It is clear that this person is anti-LDS and cleverly (so they think) trying to pose as a Stake President. I will be sure to post each of my comments as well as your responses or "non-responses" on other sites talking about so called "Pres Paternoster", just in case he doesn't post my comments here. Also, nice halo around the back of your photo! Where did you dig that picture up. Priceless!!

Stake Pres. said...

I will take this opportunity to state again (as I have several times in the past) that in order to maintain the privacy of those stake members mentioned in my blog I have not disclosed the location of my stake.

Also you state "If you want to be taken for real...."

I am not trying to "prove" anything to anyone with regards to my position in the church. I am happy for each person to pray, read the scriptures and then ask God in the name of His son if I am a stake president. Those who do this will find out the truth for themselves, independant of any external sources.

I would invite you to do the same, to report back and to post your findings wherever you can throughout the bloggernacle.

From your loving servant,

President Paternoster

Anonymous said...

President Poser'noster,

It's plainly obvious that you are trying to "convince" people that you are a Stake President, even if you say your not trying to "prove" anything. If you were a true Stake President, you would not be posting private member interviews (even if you changed their name), unless you really dont care about the members "privacy" as you claim to care so much about their privacy that you wont answer the question: "what Stake are you a Stake President over?" You can attempt to use the excuse of being concerned with a members "privacy", but why then do you post such a personal, private, confidential interview for the whole wide world to see? I'm sure you will stop posting my comments pretty soon. Dont worry, I will post them elsewhere. If you were a "true" Stake Pres, and you posted a true members personal, private, sacred, confidential interview on the world wide web (even if you changed their name), you would be released as a Stake President, PERIOD! .."You shall know them by their fruits" ...Busted!!!

Stake Pres. said...

Anonymous I am pleased to have you post your thoughts here. You have said nothing offensive that I would feel the need to censor. Your thoughts are always welcome and help to contribute to the success of this blog.

Anonymous said...

Anyone reading this Non-official site, which is not approved by the First Presidency, or supported by any of it's official doctrine published and provided to the body of its members, can tell through the spirit of discernment that Pres Poser'Noster is a fake, as well as his other fake posters. His only intention of putting this post together is to try and ridicule the church and cause others to do the same. It definitely was not created with the intention of being a harmless spoof. There is no question this Pres Poser'Noster is an apostate. Now, Pres Poser'Noster, please reply with something souding holy to cover up your true intent of this blog. Sincerely, Busted!!!

Anonymous said...

Pres Poser'Noster,

Are you going to post my last posting, as was signed as "Sincerely, Busted!!!" ..Or am I just getting to close to blowing your cover, and your true intent in putting this blog up? No worries, It's really easy to post my previous post along with my other posts an all the other sites questioning your lagitamacy, so that any time anyone ever cares to search your fraud name of Pres Paternoster, they will be able to see my uncensored (spot on) comments, that you choose not to post. Post or dont post, its going on the internet, linking back to you, so everyone can see you for the fraud you are. Its not truth that bothers me, its wolfs like you and your fake posters trying to pose as sheep, to intentionally ridicule the Church. It's not new what your doing. It has been done many times before by Satans servants. Try something original.
Sincerely, Busted!!!

Stake Pres. said...

Please accept my sincerest apology for taking so long to process your two comments anonymous.

I was about my fathers business and trust you will understand.

Anonymous said...

Pres Poser'noster,

You are hilarious! The gig is up, and everyone can see it. Except maybe for your "hired" posters. lol ..."I AM the Wizard of OZ!! Oh no, dont look behind the curtain!!! You should be a stand up comedian! Except I dont think to many people would think your funny, trying to get them to believe you are something they clearly can see your not. Or, maybe a magician? Unbelievable. Are you going to take as long as the last time to post this, or are you going to be out about your fathers business? Oh, by the way, which father do you serve? I think the answer to that is clear. It rhymes with "level". Very truly yours, Busted!!!

Stake Pres. said...

Anonymous, lovest thou me or hatest thou me? Which be it?

As for me, I have nothing but love for you.

Anonymous said...

Oh holy word user Pres Poser'noster,

I havest no hatred toward thee, or thou or thine!

What I do have hatred toward is thine intent to deceive thy brotheren and sisters into believing thou art something thou art truly not! If thou truly lovest me, as thou hast said, thou wouldst not work to deceive me as well as all of thine other viewers. So keep using thine holy words as thou choosest, and maybe someone out there mayest believest in thine total bullcrapist! Sincerely, Busted!!!

Stake Pres. said...

Thou speakest well the language of the Lord Brother Anonymous.

Liz Godkin Marsh said...

>>>What I do have hatred toward is thine intent to deceive thy brotheren and sisters into believing thou art something thou art truly not!<<<

Gee... that's the EXACT SAME REASON why I have issues with ol' Tom Monson over there in SLC!

Jared D. said...

May I use this for my home teaching lesson this month? I meet with a married couple who don't have children and I saw that they had sex toys on the table once. I think it'd be an appropriate time to share this message with them. What do you think?

Stake Pres. said...

As directed by the spirit and under the guidance of the Lord you may indeed use this lesson Brother D. It sounds like this particular couple is in need of your guiding love.

Anonymous said...

If I were investigating the church and came across this conversation, I would make a quick decision, I wouldn't want to be a mormon!! Some of your comments about what you cannot do in the bedroom are absurd, but hey, if you believe that sex is only for procreation then you just keep practicing that, none of my concern or business. But the main reason this conversation would steer me away is because of the judgmental remarks made. Those who tell Daryl he is a wolf in sheep's' clothing, etc, wow! Who made you the great judge?

If this is "prophetic" revelation, then someone please find me a source outside of a dusty old copy that has been handed down from stake pres. to stake pres. It looks like you can find it by doing internet searches. Can anyone find it on lds.org? I do BELIEVE that the prophet will never lead me astray, but that doesn't mean every word he says is revelation. If the LDS church believes this is true doctrine and not something that is archived away with some of the things we have disregarded from Brigham Young, then point me to where I can find it. And I would think, that if this is true doctrine, every bishop should have it. And I have heard of many bishops who have been asked the same question as this stake president and said that oral sex is okay.

I also find it amusing that some say nothing has been ever said about anal sex so anal is okay, but not oral. Probably because are dear sweet prophet, President Kimball, had not thought such a thing was possible.

Anonymous said...

Brigham Taft Pratt comments- LOL!! Oh my goodness, lol!

Hey, whatever people want to do regarding sexual matters is there business. Some church members are for oral sex and others are against it. It is so personal and private.

Christian church service said...

Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I feel fervently about this and I like learning about this subject. Thanks for sharing this valuable post.

Prophecy news watch

Prophecy news watch said...

Thanks, I will bookmark this page and use it... really very help full blog.


Donovan said...

This might be one of my favorite blogs now lol

Anonymous said...

This has to be a spoof. The comments are pretty funny though.

Anonymous said...

Except as noted, everything here is my own opinion and should not be considered as official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

My desire to do only the will of God, no matter what, has lead me to prayer, searching, and research. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I currently have these opinions, subject to change according to the further light and knowledge God has promised and does give me "line upon line."

Topic 1 - I'm fairly picky about who I let tell me what is right and wrong. Too often, I've had bishops, stake presidents, and even seventies tell (order?) me to do things I have later found to be against Church doctrine and, more importantly, against the will of Christ. Let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that just because someone has a leadership position that they have somehow become infallible. The only 'infallibles' are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Absolute trust can be given to none else, not even the President of the Church.

God said we should take "the Spirit as our guide" and in an official proclamation of the church in 1865, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve stated "that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve." In other words, it's not official church doctrine unless it has all 15 apostles' signatures.

This letter does not have all 15 signatures and therefore by the church's own policy and definition, cannot be interpreted as official church doctrine. Thus, nothing stated therein can be considered obligatory toward any member of the Church of Jesus Christ. Please do not think that the First Presidency (current or past) is somehow unaware of this technicality.

Topic 2 - I have long felt the concern about the "marriage bed" should be much more about the heart than the act. Paul made it very clear, "The marriage bed is undefiled." There is no explanation, exception, or interpretation given.

in addition to that, Christ taught in the new Testament, the Boov of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants, that if we look upon a woman with to lust after her, the we have committed adultery. (vice versa for looking on a man, ladies). Again, no explanation and no exceptions given, in any scripture - ever.

Which leaves me with the only possible interpretation that lust is evil, even in the bedroom, whether it inspires the missionary position or the entire Kama Sutra. I believe that this is the concern that President Kimball always had. In the mind of President Kimball, the only things that can inspire sex (in any form) are lust or procreation. Many church leaders believe the same, though its doubtful they can express themselves clearly on the subject.

So, in order to help the members avoid lust (which is evil no matter when or where) Kimball commissioned this letter and sent it "only to bishops and up". I believe the intention was good, and that they are not just "old men from a repressed generation." But the similarity to to the law of Moses is undeniable.

I believe we need to be more concerned about our hearts than subjective definitions of which form a particular act can or cannot occur. What teaches us right and wrong is the Holy Spirit, which both my wife and I can attest can (must?) be present during sex.

Anonymous said...

I think it is inappropriate for a Stake President to be openly blogging about personal interviews with members of the stake.
Those kind of conversations should stay between the member, the president, and the Lord.

sleuth said...

If Sister Paternoster has never had her husband's tongue between her legs, I feel sorry for her. And if the DID get his tongue there, I suspect she would give him the reciprocal oral surprise of his life.

The idea that sex is only for reproduction overlooks human history. Sex is also for comfort, consolation, and plain old pleasure.

Anonymous said...

Wow, some are posting questions if this a parody or legit? Really? One look at the bloggers photo should let anyone know. While I find some of this unfunny, it is obviously intended for amusement.

Jason H. Smith said...

Apostasy! Apostasy! Just who do these guys think they are! The brethren just keep stumbling into the realms of unrighteous dominon, with these ridiculous rules!

Why is a woman's body designed to receive such an intense sexual experience, in the first place?

It's just the same with hair length and beards: it is merely driven by personal taste (no pun intended) prejudice and fashion.

Sisters: if you don't want to do it, then just don't do it! You certainly don't need to go crying off to the bishop or stake president, about it, when you have your temple recommend interview.

President Boyd K. Packer said...

This blog is an absolute outrage! It confirms what I have felt and touched upon (no, not my confidential booklet, for the priesthood) but the 'ever present threat of the intellectuals'.

Brethren, sister Dew should be your guiding light, example and inspiration: just subsumate all your frustrations through one big power trip. It does wonders in hardening the heart and deadening the soul. That you may all worship upon the alter of a perfectly correlated, public affairs driven true and living Church.

Anonymous said...

I think you need to repent. You cannot be using President Packer's name in such a mocking way, like this. Have you no shame, sir?

This blog seeks to raise serious questions and issues, that President Paternoster is kindly devoting some of his very busy schedule towards helping us, in our hour of need!

My adivce is: get off this site, you apostate heathen!

President Boyd K. Packer said...

How dare you question both my identity and integrity!

Post me your name and membership number, if you dare ... and I'll soon show you what can be done to your car with my oxygen tank!

Anonymous said...

'President Packer' you have definitely lost the plot, on this one!

I can only hope that the Committee For Strengthening Church Members gets wind of this, and reports you to your stake president, with the recommendation that you be excommunicated!

Also, Jason H. Smith, how dare you accuse the brethren of apostasy! Correlation brings uniformity of doctrine, disciipline and order, into the Church.

Furthermore, Public Affairs burnishes that doctrine, discipline and order, into the gleaming house of Israel that our hearts, minds and souls do so much yearn for. And at the risk of being grossly misinterpreted, North Korea is our shining example!

Anonymous said...

You're an idiot and should go to hell. Don't make the church look bad. Your wife is your EQUAL! Dont ever say she has to obey you! That is not what they teach in the temple. You don't need to be conceiving to have sex. You're stupid. Learn something before you try to act like you know what your saying.

Sincerely, a real Mormon living the true lds faith.

Jason H. Smith said...

The bottom line is this: in the name of 'doctrinal purity' we have, instead, a sanitised, airless, brainwashed programme of 'unrighteous dominion'.

Furthermore, for years, I believed in this sort of policy; but I now realise it is clearly wrong.

Satan works in many subtle ways ... and this is, undoubtedly, one of the most insidious forms of his 'unrighteous dominion' over us, and over the brethren, in particular.

No doubt, this letter was read out to all the congregations, so no one would be in any doubt about Church policy, concerning the renewal of your temple recommend.

A similar example of unrighteous dominion was the ridiculous policy of banning sisters from saying a prayer, during sacrament meetings, from 1967 to 1977. What, on earth, inspired that one ... except Satan, who is the father of all lies, but comes as an angel of light.

Indeed, one might venture to speculate that it was deliberately introduced as a programme of provocation, in order to flush out all those 'undesirables' that might have the temerity to question the injustice of such a policy?

Moreover, the Church's long-standing ban on all worthy males being ordained into the priesthood, could we be linked into this? In other words: 'how do we keep the members in line by having them sustain the unsustainable? Until such time that we do allow the unsustainables to be sustained!'

The gospel is true; but the Church prides itself on its clean-shaven, corporate freindly image, which seeks to correlate absolutely everything into a lds version of North Korea!

And, on a topical note: 'By doing this, we will ingratiate ourselves into the corridors of power, that all may believe that our public affairs image is the true and living gospel. But the truth is: it is nothing but an abomination, in the eyes of the Lord!

Anonymous said...

The fact that you posted that woman's name sickens me. Please stop posting your personal views as if they were from the church. What goes on between two married people WITH CONSENT is fine. If that girl can't get off without her husband going down on her, it's not fair to put the man's orgasm at the top of the priority list. Stop being so selfish and make your wife happy for once!

Anonymous said...


The letter you refer to was later followed up with another letter to bishop and stake presidents one year later. It explained that bishops and stake presidents again are NOT to probe latter day saints on the intimate details of their sexual lives. Period. It is true though that if such acts result in guilt or loss of the spirit in the marriage enough to bring it up to a bishop....then yes the practice should cease. The easiest way for me to understand this is this: if these practices were indeed deemed unholy and impure despite both partners consenting and willfully practicing, and would disqualify the saints from worthy temple worship regardless of circumstance, the lord would require us to answer for it in temple recommend interviews. Has he done so? No. Now if a couple feels a loss of spirit or feels that it is driving a wedge into their marriage enough to bring it up in the interview....then yes they should cease the practice in order to remain worthy for temple worship. President may I remind you that 'the letter of the law killeth, but the spirit of the law giveth light.' It is not your place to have this type of discussion in eye of the public. These types of discussions are only to be had in house of the lord between ward/stake members and their bishops or stake presidents....THAT the lord has definitely revealed through his prophets. Now I am no one to tell you how to be a stake president and I am not going to, but any member of the church knows that blogging about whether oral or anal sex is appropriate as if you were speaking for the church is absolutely inappropriate. Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

Lol.. Stake president my ass... :)

Anonymous said...

What a joke. This is the biggest bunch of bologna I have ever heard. I find it hilarious that so many people read this and claim they know that this man is full of the spirit and that this is an inspired blog. Church members need to do what their scriptures say and "open their eyes." kind of like how the witnesses to the BoM "saw" the plates with their "spiritual eyes." My recommendation for ALL church members is to do some research into your own faith. You will discover a lot you never would have thought was possible about your religion. Use the brains that God gave you!

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I actually read the entire thing!!! hahahah... such a waste of my time... All because of a joke Stake President... It's really hard to think that some people would find this blog serious... that is what drives me crazy, and people bearing their testimonies about these guy? hahaha

Anonymous said...

First of all...stake presidents do not have blogs. Stake presidents can only council those IN HIS STAKE not the entire world through the internet. That is only the prophet and his apostles. Secondly, this shows that if it is not on LDS.org you should not trust it or even waste your time with it. If you have questions and concerns read the real sincere truth here. http://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/they-twain-shall-be-one-thoughts-on-intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me! You are one odd, misinformed fella.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you are a descendant of Orson or Parley's considering your last name. In the temple, did they also teach you to break your wife's heart? Perhaps you might try a little tact next time in order that you might still feel obedient with out breaking your wife's heart?

Love Orange said...

If married, consenting adults in a loving relationship wish to explore each other’s bodies in an intimate way surly whether you are religious or not shouldn’t make a difference!

Anonymous said...

i was going to say that in college, and later in life the advice that everyone recieved was if either spouse felt uncomfortable about it, dont do it. Feelings in the relationship were more important than actions. That being said, oral sex is a safe and acceptable act so long as the partner "feels" like doing it. I'd imagine some people dont like the idea, or dont like doing it. Maybe the taste is too much, and should not be demanded to do it. This advice has always made sense, the old shit from the 80s was/is a joke and sadly still haunts many members, and supposed leaders. Even though this is a spoof, it is very accurate and painful for a great many mormons. Spoof or not, it is real. Mormon history if anything has caused more harm than good, just stay in the present people.

Anonymous said...

hes really not a baboon, this shit was actually taught, and continues to be taught! The church has no paid/trained, responsible clergy. It is strictly chance that you get quality/constructive leadership. In the event you get some nut job idiot for council, there goes your sex life, for.. forever! fail.

Anonymous said...

I can definitely understand why oral sex is an unholy practice- that's a given- but is it against the law of chastity to have sex with other women and not tell your wife about it like Joseph Smith did with Fanny Alger?

Anonymous said...

You are all insisting some crazy things especially the man who imagines god in the corner during sex.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Hot dang, this is fun! I hope Daryl never catches on.

George Udosen said...

Excuse,what do you mean by your wife has to wait till conception? I consider you one who is mixing up issues,are you actually a stake president? I doubt it. So you only have sex when you wish to have children, perhaps we should all donate our sperm to fertilize our wives eggs in any lab rather than deliver them into her as God intended we do.

Anonymous said...

Oral sex in the bonds of marriage is NOT a sin. Also, in this post it says that sex isn't meant for fun or recreational activity. That is entirely 100% inaccurate. In the bishop's handbook it states that sex is NOT just for procreation, but to show love and for leisure. The only way oral sex in marriage would be a sin is if one of the spouses was forcing the other to do it. Other than that, if you both enjoy it then it is NOT a sin.

I think this stake president is apostate.

Anonymous said...

I am not mormon and I don't know you but am proud of you. I thought all white people have or are engaging in this act right now, especially women. If you want to talk my email is webizone@yahoo.com. Keep it up!

Anonymous said...

I found this very interesting. If this is truly an LDS Pres., then I must inform you that BYU is teaching blasphemy. For when I have questioned several religion teachers, each said that as long as both adults are consenting and neither of them FEELS degraded, then all is well and do what you please. (Minus harming your partner, of course.) If this is truly real, I am afraid I shall not be as good a member as I wish to be.

Anonymous said...

You are such a fucking liar, you aren't a stake pres at all. You are a fucking liar. Keep these old twats out of the business that occurs in my bedroom ya cunts

Anonymous said...

Are you fucking kooked out? How is it in anyway appropriate to tellca married couple what they can and cannot do in bed. Did you also ask them to dim the lights whenever they have sex?

Anonymous said...

Pretty sure that letter was later ricinded by the brotheren. As my mission presidents father was of the quarum of the 12 and his famous
saying when this topic was brought up was " when the door is closed anything goes". Hint he wrote the
book One for the money.

Worktop Guy said...

Interesting to hear your perspective, can't see it working though!

Anonymous said...

This is why I left the church. Not the frowning of oral sex per se - Honestly I'd never actually given it that much thought until now - but to say that sex is only deemed appropriate under circumstances where childbearing may occur is so backwards, and a true testament to the extreme sexism present in not only LDS culture, but most other religions as well. Indoctrinating people with such falsities is a form of control, and morally wrong.

Bruce Berkheimer said...

Haha. Spoof. I just hope nobody thinks this is a serious blog

Anonymous said...

You guys are not mormon. You passing off the most extreme forms of this religion can be interpreted without being removed from your post if you had it.

Anonymous said...

Please tell me she divorced you later on

Anonymous said...

This blog string has been truely hilarious and entertaining, but quite disturbing as well. I mean, there are actual faithful Mormons who don't get the joke and seriously consider these absurd ideas about sex from God's leaders. Wow, so glad I'm out of the that zombie cult wonderland of BS. That still small voice spoke to me and you know it said? This is pure nonsense, Period. Start thinking for yourselves and do a little outside reading sometime.

james huntsman said...

President Paternoster, Thank you for your insightful posts and recollection of church policy and subsequent guidance on a number of issues. I'm attaching an actual email from an anonymous Stake President trying to increase turnout at a local church meeting. Can you provide any assistance on what we can do to get people to show up to these critical gatherings? I know most people would rather be home with friends and family but they don't realize what they're missing. Please help! See below:

Dear Bishoprics,

Please note the stake general priesthood meeting is coming up toward the end of this month. We have noticed that in some wards, the priesthood attendance for both the adults and youth have been consistently low. We encourage the priesthood brethren in your wards to make an effort to attend to this stewardship meeting even though school is in session on the following day. Even if the youth have to come in their school uniforms, please encourage them to do so.

As we hold meetings in the dedicated chapel, we encourage you and the rest of the priesthood brethren to come in your Sunday best as circumstances would allow you. However, if you are wearing a normal shirt on any working days, then, we encourage you to put on your Sunday best whenever you come to any meetings that are held in the dedicated chapel. Remember, we go as invited guests to the Lord’s chapel just as we would don our Sunday best to go to a temple. We can have greater reverence for the Lord’s dedicated chapel.

We thank you for your continued effort and support in building up the kingdom of God on earth.


Stake Presidency

Anonymous said...


Humans are very vulnerable while engaged in a sexual relation. I totally disagree with you humiliating your marriage partner when she wanted to selflessly provide you pleasure and waiting until she is 19 to have sex is a sin. You give yourself to your marriage partner.

Anonymous said...

Warning to all! Especially LDS members who think they are standing for what is right.

Step #1-Consider the source!!!

Stake Pres also masquerades as Fake Pres and uses similar ploys to lead sheeple astray.


"I am a fake Stake president immitating a Fake Stake President Paternoster. His blog is a clever spoof site on LDS teachings. However its dangerous because some people believe the nonsense he talks about and think they are actual LDS beliefs. The clever part is, some in fact are factual, but it only takes a little bit that isnt to lead others astray. For example: In a recent blog he responded to a coment saying that as a Stake President he can forgive sins of members in his Stake. Only the one Jesus Christ has the authority to forgive. Paternoster did not atone for anyones sins, therefore cannot forgive sins. This and many other things will be address in this blog"

It is wise to consider the counsel of Modern Prophets https://www.lds.org/manual/building-an-eternal-marriage-teacher-manual/intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

daphne said...

Great post! Now, your personalized Priesthood Line of Authority is beautifully laminated featuring the classic portrait of Jesus Christ by the renowned artist Greg Olsen.

The Johnson's said...

Your poor wife...

Anonymous said...

Dude, if my stake president would submit myself to that kind of embarassement, I would leave the Church at the same moment. It would bother me a lot if my wife chose to bring up the topic with the SP instead of discussing the matter with me. It is very troubling that members seem to be unable to cope with things so simple like these by themselves, without guilt. Do you still wonder why so many people are leaving the Church? It is your fault, It is the old men's fault.

Anonymous said...

You will only have sex with your wife to have children? Oh how sad for you.. Marriage without sex for me would be called Divorce real quick. Why be with someone you can't be intimate with? I understand controlling your passions but if I love my wife I want to make love to her. I feel so sad for some of you.. And yes I'm a temple going Mormon..

Anonymous said...

T Hamblin
As I'm reading this Blog I am shocked to see the way that the Bishops in this church treat their wives! I live in Utah and was born into the mormon religion and where I live 95% of the city is mormon. I admit I am currently inactive however that doesn't change the fact that I have proper Mormon values instilled in me and I know for a fact that heavenly father wouldn't agree with the values the bishops in this blog are instilling! He teaches us that men and women, man and wife are EQUAL and that while the man does hold the preisthood the woman bears children and cares for the family. A marriage is a team effort not a man controlling his wife! You are limiting them on the internet and in the bedroom. What will this accomplish? You are supposed to trust your spouse especially if you married a worty pure mormon woman you should trust that they will not betray you or look at vulgar things on the internet! As for affairs in the bedroom denying your newly sealed wife the opportunity to be intimate with you, her husband, who she has been faithful to and waited to show her love for you is an abomination! sex is meant to show love and affection, not just for reproduction! If you deny sexual desires which are natural it will only cause a rift in your relationship! and as for polygamy it was only practiced at a time where women needed to be married in order to be cared and provided for! It is not taught in LDS to have multiple wives. If this is your belief then I'm sure the bishops, stake presidents here in utah and the prophet will tell you to join the FLDS church which practices polygamy.

Anonymous said...

Great to know that we have to sexually walk on eggshells before and after marriage.

Anonymous said...

I love blow jobs

Anonymous said...

This comment is complete bull Crap! This did not happen, the church does not condone this thinking, and you are lying to spread negative light on the church. I have been a member my entire life of 43 years and married for 24 years in the temple and this is complete garbage! If this truly happened...you are horribly in the wrong with your thinking. Your poor wife!

Anonymous said...

How sad that ignorance of the human body in the bedroom is so common within the church. Mutual respect and exploration of centers of pleasures is not a sin and should not be "shunned." The body is a beautiful, intricate, amazing gift to be shared mutually and with consent. I feel for the young bride "chastised" by her husband. Shame on him for exercising such unrighteous dominion over his new wife! Talk about starting the marriage off with abuse! As a Registered Nurse of 25 years and member of the church, it is a shame the church has entered the bedroom, if this is truly not a spoof! What happens between two consenting adults, who are married, stays in the bedroom without church chastisement for exploring a God given gift of sexual pleasure between a husband and wife.

Anonymous said...

No, its not a spoof. RE: "No matter how strong the winds of public opinion may BLOW, the Church remains steadfast..."


Anonymous said...

I was under the Iimpression, actually read it from a President, that the Bishopric AND the stake president are both to stay out of the bedroom. The fact that somebody needs the desire to be in another's bed room is completely out of the practice of the church. and when a stake president called me on it, I in turn called him on it, calling him to repentance. A married couple cannot be asked about such things.

H Donaldson said...

You dick head

s4saucy said...

Sex Toys for Ladies

Fusion FM said...

Fuck nephi in the ass

Anonymous said...

This site isn't a spoof, and it's not even clever. There are really people who believe this stuff. It's horrifying. Nothing is more unnatural than the numb relationships of most active latter day saint couples. It's one heartbeat away from mandated celebacy. Nothing is more unnatural than failing to embrace the furnace of your own sexuality and its links to life itself, vitality, and to physical and emotional (and SPIRITUAL) health. I know. I'm LDS and have been for a long time. They seek to take that furnace and banish it to the back room and attempt to turn it into a forgotten, smoldering ember that we can only frantically fan into something that partially resembles its potential when given permission by leaders who have an unnatural paranoia of their own bodies and their own feelings.

Anonymous said...

Read your favorite quotes by clicking the link below
its a mobile friendly website , made in latest technology
Love Quotes-
Life Quotes-
Inspirational Quotes-
Friendship Quotes-
Funny Quotes-
Motivational Quotes-
Happiness Quotes-
Good Quotes-
Cute Quotes-
Positive Quotes-
Quote Of The Day

Mike 2 said...

Is this blog a joke? lol. If not, wow. First off, sex is a great way to enhance a marriage and as someone else "righteously" stated that it is better to not see your spouse naked? There are some very strange and Amish comments going on up in here.

I guess to give credibility to myself, before I got married 8 years ago, I had the fortunate opportunity to have a side conversation with my dad, also Stake President after my recommend interview, in which I was able to ask about the act/acts of marriage. There is a reason that the Brethren no longer talk about what goes on in the bedroom between a man and a woman. The guiding principle now is do not do anything in the bedroom, or isolated beach, that you or your spouse is uncomfortable with or that drives the Spirit from your lives. It is also taught like this at BYU.

Anonymous said...

lets not get too serious and confused, with just simple sex. because if its too simple (get in and out) there is no love, no romance. Intimacy is between you and he one you love. In the church it says to keep your marriage strong. therefore yes dont go overboard by doing 50 shades but dont just be simple "get in and done". you need touch and love involved in it too.

Akon Watson said...

Are you looking for a large variety of reliable-Vibrators,sex toy,Men toys,Women toys,Lingerie,Lubricant,Masturbaters,Nipplle Play,Harness & Starp On's and much more,you are at right place.Shop here at reasonable and afordable prices and enhance your private activities,refer to SEX TOYS -Spice up your sex life with amazing passion toys privately Or To buy Now Click Here

Anonymous said...

Can you please get help. And bless your poor wife's heart..

Anonymous said...

I've always understood that oral and anal sex would be wrong, but is there a reason why you are silent on petting, rubbing, and using your hands specifically on (and for a long time) your spouses genitals?

leif said...

It wasn't designed to be read over the pulpit. It was addressed just to the leadership.

The church taught that blacks should not receive the priesthood yet this was never revealed to ANY prophet. In fact this was simply based off prejudice of men.

Be careful what you think is from God and what is from men.

So if this is as cut and dry as blacks in the priesthood than I think we are safe lol. Btw Joseph Smirh ordained a black man to the priesthood

leif said...

We were also told blacks couldn't have the priesthood but now have learned that was based off prejudice and there was NEVER any revelation from God supporting this decision. Joesph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood.

So based off this we know without a doubt that our leaders oft provide them opinion and not revelation from God on many many matters.

If you don't like oral sex than so be it. Now you have a nice little document that backs up your opinion. But for me I'm comfortable with and feel strongly that this (like blacks and the priesthood) is simply opinion based off upbringing.

If I'm going to burn in hell for not following this obscure letter than so be it.

This is how the church causes so much rift -by trying to claim doctrine of everything that leaves the mouth or pen of a leader.

Brigham Young while a wonderful person was racist. Period. He was raised that way We all have our own weaknesses.

Let's not try to put others down for things that are simply not doctrine.

Daryl Young - thank you for being the voice of reason amongst all these blind sheep.

Anonymous said...

The church was inspired about blacks and the priesthood, they have never said why. Is there precedence for this in the scriptures. The woman at the well wasn't able to be taught and then baptized. Jesus said first the children of the covenant would hear the gospel, and then the gentile. Policy may change, but never doctrine.

Jimmy said...

Talk about "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture"!! I hope this man is not really a Stake President! Please release this man...these are the types of leaders that make the church sound cultist with his man made philosophical ideas! A friend told me about this and I didn't believe it until I read it myself. I Jimmy Carpenter from Mesa AZ (Dana Ward & Mesa South Stake) an bold enough to say I would never sustain this man!

Anonymous said...

Two concerns I have with this blog. One, he used names (hopefully he had permission to post that). and 2) That 1982 letter was brought to an end more or less with the death of President Kimball.
For the past two decades, the First Presidency’s guidance about sexual relations between married persons has typically been phrased in terms of the appropriate purposes of sexual relations between husband and wife, as opposed to addressing the appropriateness of specific acts. Here are a couple examples:

"sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage. "

I would warn any Priesthood leader from counseling a couple on specific acts. The answer is what BOTH people feel is appropriate and not what a Bishop or Stake president says. We stay out of the married couple's bedroom unless abuse is in question.

I think you need to go and do a refresher on this and follow the advice of your leader (general authority).

Sanjiwani Health Centre said...

If you believe in sexual abstinence and want to follow this then you should have knowledge related with it. This is the best practice to avoid pregnancy and STDs.

Unknown said...

If a Profit or Apostle makes a clear statement about this subject. Do we believe it is Gods voice or just brush it off like we as humans do everything else! Common practice in life!

Mark Mays said...

Heterosexuality let's talk about HETEROSEXUALITY why doesn't the Mormon church talk about heterosexuality or heterosexual or straight behavior?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 344 of 344   Newer› Newest»